But here's the real question, to choose what? I've heard this statement time and time again, but not just when it comes to MHLs but other choices such as: not wearing safety belts, not wearing motor cycle helmets, the right to smoke and such, where do we draw the line? and who decides?

Even in the other discussion regarding driving 4wd's in the city and having bull bars fitted, the right to bare arms, where does it end?

But here's the real question, to choose what? I've heard this statement time and time again, but not just when it comes to MHLs but other choices such as: not wearing safety belts, not wearing motor cycle helmets, the right to smoke and such, where do we draw the line? and who decides?

Even in the other discussion regarding driving 4wd's in the city and having bull bars fitted, the right to bare arms, where does it end?

Not that simple when all the questions are asked is it?

Martin

It is a statement of fact that if it were mandated that we had to wear helmets in cars we would save far more lives than are killed by bicycle use in total each year.

However, it's my opinion that if the persons drafting the law think it's a good idea it will be done. MHL for cars would be immensely unpopular so it ain't going to happen despite to societal benefit.

If you rounded up every bike rider and convinced them to vote one way or another we wouldn't even register as a political swing. So, by being a minority we have no say

Can anyone help me find an australian dealer who sells the Casco Warp track sprint helmets or any brand that make that style(track sprint skull cap) of helmet?Cheers any advice would be helpful as i want to be able to use this helmet in Aus but i can only find Uk or japanese, USA etc and im sure they wont pass Aus standards.Snydas22

snydas22 wrote:Can anyone help me find an australian dealer who sells the Casco Warp track sprint helmets or any brand that make that style(track sprint skull cap) of helmet?Cheers any advice would be helpful as i want to be able to use this helmet in Aus but i can only find Uk or japanese, USA etc and im sure they wont pass Aus standards.Snydas22

If you're planning on using this for track racing, it's my understanding that Australian Standards and compulsory helmet laws don't apply, only whatever rules that Cyclesport Australia and the race organisers might set.

snydas22 wrote:Can anyone help me find an australian dealer who sells the Casco Warp track sprint helmets or any brand that make that style(track sprint skull cap) of helmet?Cheers any advice would be helpful as i want to be able to use this helmet in Aus but i can only find Uk or japanese, USA etc and im sure they wont pass Aus standards.Snydas22

If you're planning on using this for track racing, it's my understanding that Australian Standards and compulsory helmet laws don't apply, only whatever rules that Cyclesport Australia and the race organisers might set.

Cycling Australia say you have to wear an Australian Standards approved helmet. I wear my normal helmet on the road and on the track.

Naaa. I prefer a good conscientious, socially minded, informed, and accountable government to make my decisions for me.If I wasn't compelled to wear a helmet I probably wouldn't. I would probably live dangerously and enjoy the wind in my hair and a weight off my neck, but no, I would have been killed 23 years ago.

MHLs are not onerous. I'm glad we've got them. It's too easy to make the choice to be fatally wrong for trivial reasons.

notwal wrote:Naaa. I prefer a good conscientious, socially minded, informed, and accountable government to make my decisions for me.If I wasn't compelled to wear a helmet I probably wouldn't. I would probably live dangerously and enjoy the wind in my hair and a weight off my neck, but no, I would have been killed 23 years ago.

MHLs are not onerous. I'm glad we've got them. It's too easy to make the choice to be fatally wrong for trivial reasons.

That's right. We would rather they lead sickly lives up until they die of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. That's progress for you.

notwal wrote:Naaa. I prefer a good conscientious, socially minded, informed, and accountable government to make my decisions for me.If I wasn't compelled to wear a helmet I probably wouldn't. I would probably live dangerously and enjoy the wind in my hair and a weight off my neck, but no, I would have been killed 23 years ago.

MHLs are not onerous. I'm glad we've got them. It's too easy to make the choice to be fatally wrong for trivial reasons.

That's right. We would rather they lead sickly lives up until they die of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. That's progress for you.

They don't need to, they can take 5 seconds of their lives, stick a helmet on their heads and off they go to a better healthier life. If they don't have a bike or helmet a lot of shops do package deales.

That was easy, now I'm fit and healthy and wearing a helmet.

Trouble is it's all about frame of mind and really has nothing to do with the helmet at all.

There was an ad on the cretiniser last night with a young woman with brain damage from a smokebox crash suggesting no one should buy a smokebox without curtain airbags. Why not go the MHL for cars as well? If it only saves one life it will be worth it...

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

I think some of the problems arising from helmet 'discussions' come from the 'discussion' not always being about the helmet or helmet laws.

There are those who think they should have the choice to wear or not to wear a helmet, but that is more about the state of our laws not specifically helmet laws. The example provided earlier about the gun law highlights this. There are many similar laws.

If someone wants the choice to wear or not to wear a helmet, how is that different from someone wanting the choice to wear or not to wear a seatbelt, carry a gun, drive on the wrong side of the road or even to murder someone (yes a bit extreme)? Who or what dictates that the helmet law should be different from all these other enforced laws? The answer, in the end, is that WE do. WE, as a community, have passed a law to wear helmets. Whether I, as an individual, or 'you' (no one in particular) as an individual, agree or disagree that we should wear helmets is irrelevant to the argument. It is what WE agree upon that matters.

From all the helmet 'discussions' I have read and some, participated in, the one common theme is that WE all don't agree. Even about things like the number of people who say they won't ride a bike because they don't want to wear a helmet - canvas some people you know who don't ride bikes - I've yet to find anyone who uses this as a reason for not riding a bike - others indicate that there are many people who do?

Personally I know there are times when I wear a helmet, for example whilst touring on a quiet back county road and even my daily commute which is mostly back roads, that there is little to be gained by wearing the helmet. If I had the choice in these cases I would probably not wear a helmet. However there are other times where I would choose to wear a helmet due to the traffic, or conditions, or where I think setting an example to children is important.

At the end of the day I just wear the helmet and enjoy the ride.

What's my point - I really don't know, is there really any point in the whole helmet discussion?

Political science teaches us that this is not correct. The State has passed a law. Democracy is simply choosing the people who will oppress you. I did not ask for a helmet law. I was not old enough to vote when the helmet law was passed. We, as a community, are too apathetic and too shortsighted to fight against such control - worth remembering that the recent ALP NSW Govt was supposed to be out on its bum 8 years ago except for political suicide by the Libs, with Brogden and Denham, before the last two elections. I refuse to believe that the community is really that involved in the law making process. We are told the results of studies, without serious consideration of the alternatives, and opponents are shouted down rather than given a chance to talk and reason with the public. It has happened with the climate change debate, it will happen with anything that allows politicians to control us.

There are much more important social ills that need addressing before bicycle helmets. The comment that helmets would save lives in cars is the most compelling one I know. Car drivers wouldn't stand for it. And yet - cyclists are forced to use them despite needing them once every 5 years? Liberty is important.

Laws, in general, remove freedoms. Unless there is a clear and just reason to infringe on a citizens freedom then the law shouldn't be passed. Speeding laws make sense as unsafe driving can infringe on the fundamental rights of others. Helmet laws do not.

Unfortunately, in Australia we most of us have very little concept of freedom and we are more than happy to let our government dictate our lives. Hence more and more we live in a nanny state and politicians do what they do best and force their will on others.

Helmets are not mandatory in hundreds of other more dangerous and risky activities where they could be far more beneficial. Why is cycling singled out? (Probably because when it was passed cycling was seen as a activity mainly for children.)

martinjs wrote:They don't need to, they can take 5 seconds of their lives, stick a helmet on their heads and off they go to a better healthier life. If they don't have a bike or helmet a lot of shops do package deales.

That was easy, now I'm fit and healthy and wearing a helmet.

Trouble is it's all about frame of mind and really has nothing to do with the helmet at all.

Martin

Yeah.. but you see that's the bit you're missing. You're used to riding with a helmet and as you say it hasn't stopped you. I'm the same, I'm doing 1000k a month - and everyone of them wearing an approved polystyrene hat (APH). Even if given the choice tomorrow probably 90+% of them would still be with a APH.

So that's great - but that's my point. Because you're used to it you don't see the problem. But my point is that there are lots of people out there who it just makes it that little bit too hard, or they don't want their hair to get messed up, or they don't like the sweaty head, or the looks or whatever - but it means they aren't cycling! Personally, I am 100% sure that a repealing of mhl would result in a very significant increase in cycling.

When MHL were introduced there was a massive reduction in cycling. I don't deny that there are other factors, but I still think we'd see a big increase. If we see a big increase in cycling - then that makes it safer for everyone which in turn makes cycling even more attractive.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.